Rajasthan High Court
CW/9289/2026 of VISHNU GARG S/O SHRI DULI CHAND GARG Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 27 May 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9289/2026 Vishnu Garg S/o Shri Duli Chand Garg, Aged About 62 Years, Resident of Maladevi Mohalla, Baran Police Station, Baran (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department of
[2026:RJ-JP:22528]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9289/2026
Vishnu Garg S/o Shri Duli Chand Garg, Aged About 62 Years, Resident of Maladevi Mohalla, Baran Police Station, Baran (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1.
State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2.
Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)
3.
District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Baran (Raj.)
4.
District Education Officer (HQ), Elementary Education, Baran (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman
Mr. Himanshu Jain
For Respondent(s)
:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
27/05/2026
1. Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at the stage of submission of enquiry report by the Enquiry Officer against him, pursuant to Memorandum of Charges dated 25.01.2024 issued under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958.
2. Indisputably, in furtherance to the enquiry report, no adverse action/ punishment order has been passed by the disciplinary authority against petitioner till date.
[2026:RJ-JP:22528] (2 of 2) [CW-9289/2026]
3. Submission of counsel for petitioner is that the conclusion of enquiry report itself is perverse, as at one hand, the star witnesses of department did not appear to establish the charges, yet the Enquiry Officer recorded the findings of guilt against petitioner, which are perverse and unsustainable in law.
4. Be that as it may, it is needless to observe that in furtherance to the submission of enquiry report, the stage of granting personal hearing to petitioner by the disciplinary authority has not arisen. At the stage of personal hearing, petitioner would have opportunity to point out the alleged perversity in the enquiry report before the disciplinary authority. It is within the domain and jurisdiction of disciplinary authority to either agree or disagree with the findings of enquiry report. Hence, at this stage, no interference is warranted in the enquiry report by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
5. Consequently, with aforesaid observations but without granting any indulgence to the enquiry report on merits, at this stage, instant writ petition stands disposed of.
6. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J 18/NITIN